And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make

Having been swamped by work, I never had time to comment on the biggest news about the 2008 Presidential candidates from the past week: Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John, has cancer, and from the sound of things it's not good. She was treated for Breast cancer in 2004, and it has now returned and has spread to her bones, which is currently incurable. Treatable in some cases, perhaps, but incurable. This has led to numerous stories in the media wondering if it is right for John Edwards to continue his campaign, as if somehow this is a decision to be made by us, rather than the Edwards'. Needless to say, I am not particularly sympathetic to this point of view. I think better than anyone, Ana Marie Cox (formerly known as Wonkette) sums up the media and personal dynamics pretty well:

Over time, voters may react negatively to image of a man pursuing the presidency as his wife struggles with an incurable disease. But whether or not that is the image they see is another question, and that creation of that image largely depends on how we in the media frame the Edwards' decision. Specifically, such an image will emerge if we depict that choice as Jay did: as a man -- John Edwards -- torn between "his duties as husband and father to three children, including a 6 and 8 year old" and "his duty to his country and the cause of winning the White House."

First of all, this framework presents what might be -- in the eyes of both John and Elizabeth -- a false choice. From all they've told us, the Edwards family sees those duties (as husband, as father, as candidate), as overlapping. Surely, one reason John Edwards is running for president because he wants to be a part of creating a better world for his family. Which brings us to the second problem: The decision to keep the campaign going was not John Edwards' alone to make. (And I find the presumption that it could be startlingly archaic.) John may find himself pulled to simply concentrate on his family, but I think Elizabeth would push back. I think she already has.

Does it seem selfish that he continues to run? Think about it this way: Your doctor gives you a year to live. Of course you decide to pursue the things in life you either put off or gave up on. You follow your dreams, as they say. You sail around the world. You read the Bible in Aramaic. You reconcile with a family member. For Elizabeth Edwards, the answer to the "what would you do if you only had a year to live" question is simple: Get my husband elected President.

Is that decision selfish, given that the couple has two small children? I can't say -- and I'm not sure if anyone who doesn't know the family can -- but I don't think it's a question with a standard answer.

Having some experience with traumatic events, I can safely say that how one deals with trauma, or loss, or death, or any other deeply serious issue has a tremendous amount to do with how one personally chooses to, or just instinctively does, react. In the aftermath of the Simon's Rock shooting, I was cracking jokes in the hospital starting from the time I was on the operating table (true story). It helped me rationalize things. Sure, there were times in the following months and years when I mourned, and times to have long philosophical conversations about it, and times to act a bit defiantly to prove I was alive...and all of those were appropriate at the time. For those who have trouble imagining me angry, they should have seen the fire I was spitting when an unnamed family member who does not read this blog, as far as I know, challenged me on my ways of dealing with my memories, thinking that he knew better than I (this may be something of a giveaway as to whom I am referring).

When my aunt developed breast cancer, and especially toward the end where the news got progressively worse, she tried to pack as much life out of her remaining time as possible. I'm sure she also spent time mourning, as did any number of family members before and after. If the Edwards choose to take the fighting path, more power to them (if they had chosen to drop out of the campaign, more power to them in that, too). Family is important, but let's try to remember that he is campaigning for the presidency of the United States.

Simply put, John Edwards has a legitimate shot to become the most powerful and influential person in the entire world, able to set an agenda that could conceivably help out millions of people (i think so, and I certainly think that he thinks so). If he and his wife agree that this is the higher goal, and that they are both capable of it, how in the name of anything good and holy can you try to argue he should drop out. This isn't just a job, or some kind of passing fad, it is the presidency of the United States, and that title used to mean something before the current administration decided to crap all over it. I can't say I envy the Edwards' the pain and grief they will likely have to face in the much too quickly approaching future, but they are entirely justified in their priorities. There is a legacy at stake here, for the candidate with the strongest social vision of any of the current candidates (Obama has him on general tone and eloquence, but Edwards wins on pure vision of how to make us a better country). They, as a couple, are in a position shared by only a handful of people the world round, and seem well aware of that potential. If they choose to prioritize the greater good with the time they have, and people want to complain about that, forgive me if I have to think it speaks vastly more poorly about the latter's morals than the former's.